variable_data_flow_trace

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'trace... from definition/source to usage' but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, if it modifies state, whether it requires specific permissions, or any side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence is highly concise and front-loaded. However, it is so minimal that it may miss opportunities to add reinforcing details without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the return values are assumed documented. But the description lacks guidance on how parameters like feature_path, scenario_tag, and scenario_name interact, and does not mention result size or example usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what is already stated in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states action 'trace', resource 'variables in feature scenarios', and scope 'from definition/source to usage'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like db_data_flow_trace by specifying 'variables in feature scenarios' rather than database entities.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With over 50 sibling tools including db_data_flow_trace and search_db_usage, the description should clarify that this tool is for tracing variable flow in feature scenarios, not for database queries or other analyses.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.